JUDGMENT :

K. MURALI SHANKAR, J.

1.The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.74 of 2014, dated 01.04.2019, on the file of the Principal District Court, Kanniyakumari District at Nagercoil, reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.74 of 2007, dated 19.07.2010, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Nagercoil.

2. The appellants are the plaintiffs and they filed a suit in O.S.NO.74 of 2007, before the Subordinate Court, Nagercoil, claiming partition and allotment of 3/12 shares in the suit properties and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from aleinating or encumbering the suit properties.

3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties will hereinafter be referred as per their status/ranking in their original suit.

4. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is as follows:

(a) The first plaintiff is the mother of the plaintiffs 2 and 3. The first defendant is the mother of the first plaintiff's deceased husband – Chithambara Kumar, who died on 25.04.2007 leaving behind the plaintiffs and the first defendant as his legal heirs. The suit schedule items 1 and 2 properties belonged to the first defendant's deceased mother Seetha Bai and the suit schedule items 3 and 4 belonged to the first defendant's deceased father Thiraviyam Pillai @ Maraya Kutty Pillai. The said Seetha Bai and her husband Thiraviyam Pillai @ Maraya Kutty Pillai died on 18.06.1989 and 05.09.1999 respectively leaving behind two daughters namely Tmt.Rajalekshmi – first defendant and one Nageshwari.

(b) As per the family arrangement, the properties were allotted to the first plaintiff's deceased husband Chithambara Kumar and the defendants. The said Chithambara Kumar and the defendants were in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Since the suit properties are the family and ancestral properties of the said Chithambara Kumar and the defendants, they entered into a written family arrangement deed on 30.04.2001, whereunder all of them agreed to partition the properties into three equal shares and also agreed to get the document registered, after the marriage of the second defendant.

(c) Even though the second defendant's marriage was held in the year 2002 and the first plaintiff's husband spent more then Rs.2,00,000/- for the said marriage, the defendants 1 and 2 were dragging on, for effecting partition. Hence, the first plaintiff's husband sent a legal notice on 23.11.2006 demanding partition and separate possession of his 1/3 share over the suit properties. But the notices were returned as door locked.

(d) The first plaintiff's husband executed a General Power of Attorney deed dated 08.12.2006 vide document No.280 of 2006 of Edalakudy Sub Registrar's office with regard to the third item of the suit properties. Subsequently, the first plaintiff's husband died on 25.04.2007, leaving behind the plaintiffs. As per the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, the plaintiffs and the first defendant are each entitled to 1/4 share of 1/3 share of the suit properties and as such, the plaintiffs are entitled to 3/12 shares over the suit properties. Hence, the above suit.

5. The defence of the defendants, in brief, is as follows:

The suit properties are not the ancestral or joint family properties. No family arrangements were entered into and no such agreement for partition of the properties into three equal shares took place. The alleged family arrangement deed is a created and forged o